GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**puma713**

TheAuldGrump wrote:
How necessary would a reboot of their two main games be for the continued survival of GW?

It seems to me, as a thoroughly biased outsider, that the current editions of those games has hurt GW, both through what I see as ridiculous pricing and through the rules themselves being rather poorly conceived.

Yes, a thousand times this. I left GW products (and the games I loved) for many reasons, but money and the accelerated release schedule were just two of the smaller reasons. The two larger reasons were Finecast and the way that 6th was handled. Now, I am not going to go into Finecast because we all know what a debacle that was. And I am not saying that some people do not enjoy 6th Edition - I know people that love it.

But I for one, having played since 2nd Edition and having owned nearly every army, loved the direction that GW was moving in. It seemed that, with every edition, they were getting more streamlined - making the game easier to understand, easier to play and thus, easier to teach. It seemed like they were doing their best to make the game less complex. Granted, no rules system this elaborate would be perfect, but every edition seemed to be boiled down once again and reduced once more to its finer points. Then 6th came out. It almost seemed like 2nd Edition again. It seemed like the rules team took a step back in time and just decided to throw whatever they wanted into the rulebook. In my opinion it has a very sloppy feel to it - sort of "eh, that seems cool, let's do it." And now with the introduction of dataslates and allies, it seems that the game is getting less and less organized. For some gamers, that is an immediate turn off. Some people like structure - they like their games to have a degree of certainty (even in a dice game) from whom they may be facing to charge ranges to random psychic powers.

I am always looking for a reason to get back into 40K. I love the game. I love the miniatures and I love the atmosphere, but I have tried to get into 6th and I just can't do it. If the rules were to take a step back to 5.5, then I would be back in a heartbeat. Since I know that is not going to happen, I am hopeful that a reboot to 6.5 would streamline some of the rules, rein in the Apocalypse feel of the game now and get back on the path it was on formerly.

**Herzlos**

silent25 wrote:
Surprised this hasn't been posted here yet, but via Scoodeta over at Warseer:

Spoiler:

With all the news surrounding Games Workshop over the last couple of weeks I think that it lines up fairly well. I was able to grab lunch with an old friend about a month ago who works for GW (not a local store croney). We talked everything GW and of course my drug of choice Warhammer Fantasy. He said that over the next coupel of months there would be drastic changes to the way GW does business...this was just in general. He didn't give me too many specifics, but now that the White Dwarf changes have hit the street openly and the news of a revamped website with FW product offerings and all it lines up. Once again he didnt come out and say that GW was going to be taking a hit with the earnings, but he stated that many of the changes had to do with new strategies to increase revenue and such. He has been traveling non-stop for new training and meetings, so it was easy to see something was coming down the pipe.

So on to my main point. I have always been a fantasy fanatic...game of choice hands down. He stated that there would be a new release which would change the way fantasy is currently played. Currently, the idea is to have huge blocks of infantry and high priced special characters and beasts which makes for higher costs to players and conceptually more revenue for GW. However this did not work fo rone reason or another. So it was obvious some changes were needed. The new approach will aim at bringing more people back into the game by making it smaller and more affordable. The new rule set would focus on making warhammer more of a small block and skirmish based game with fewer miniatures needed. The new box set would have less miniatures, but would basically set people up to get in the game and playing at a much reduced cost.

So he didnt give me the finer deatails that I would have liked, but he did say this would happen this summer for sure...not next year. He basically said that GW is being forced to make some changes due to some cash flow issues...which has become evident since we had lunch several weeks ago. It seems like he was pretty spot on so far with his vague statements...haha...take it as you will. But I have faith in this for many reasons. It seems with everything going on that it would line up well and make sense. GW needs a way to bring more people back intothe game while also doing soemthing to help bring fanatsy back up to strength.

Perhaps my terminology was distorted a bit in my OP. I do not believe my friend was indicating that this would be a "skirmish" game similar to Hordes or infinity. What he had stated was that it would head back in the direction of some older editions where smaller blocks were more viable. Seems people missed the smaller block protion and just focused on the skirmish portion of my OP. I am have no idea if he was saying this would be a new edition or a supplement. But my feeling was that this would be a replacement of the current ruleset. And it does line up with the smaller boxes (10 minis per). People could by a box or two and have a whole unit...instead of having to spend $200 on just one unit at 40 strong. This would allow GW to maintain the current price point while not scaring people away with the overall price of an army as they would now inherently be smaller.

There are some good things in this rumor that GW is apparently trying to address the entry level cost issue. How good this new rule set will be depend on how much the design team is willing to slaughter sacred cows. I believe that there are talent designers on the GW Design Team, but they are held back by existing philosophies that dominate design department. The whole "Pancake Edition" felt like the team could put out a good rule set, but there are those that want to hold them back or cling to outdated design ideas.

That sounds pretty promising. I can see me getting back into Warhammer Fantasy if the game size drops to the point where I can get a decent game with a battalion box or a a couple of unit boxes, and build up a large army over time. I'm sure it'd lure in a lot of ex-players, even if it's just to check out the new rules.

The talk of a smaller box-set sounds great too, if it still comes with a full set of rules for the cut down game.

**carlos13th**

Sidstyler wrote:
Making the game smaller might make it slightly cheaper, but it won't do jack gak about sticker shock. You'll still have people walking into a store and seeing $85+ monsters and $60+ boxes of 5-10 infantry, then walking back out again saying "lol, nope." And most people won't sit and listen to you explain "No, really, it's not that bad! Trust me, I'm a salesman."

This is a very good point. Even people who are willing to pay 20 for 10-16 standard troops are going to shirk at the prices of some other stuff. I have seen people considering getting into it turn tail when looking at the price of the rulebook. I have a bunch of Dark Angels I am getting rid of not because I dislike them but because I refuse to invest the extra money in them to make them a playable force once you factor in the prices of other models, books etc.

I would rather paint up a bunch of Samurai Historical's for use in both Kings of War and Ronin. Especially when I consider that you can get a playable force for ronin from north star for about the same price as a single warhammer 40k box those models are in metal and are on the more expensive end of metal Samurai Models. Steel Fist do Samurai models that some people consider pricey that work out about £3 a model and they are some of the nicest well researched models I have ever set eyes upon.

Even already pot committed, sunk cost fallacy whatever you wan't to call it its still cheaper for me to call it a day with GW and go elsewhere for gaming.

**silent25**

Herzlos wrote:

That sounds pretty promising. I can see me getting back into Warhammer Fantasy if the game size drops to the point where I can get a decent game with a battalion box or a a couple of unit boxes, and build up a large army over time. I'm sure it'd lure in a lot of ex-players, even if it's just to check out the new rules.

The talk of a smaller box-set sounds great too, if it still comes with a full set of rules for the cut down game.

Hope so. If the new strike force boxes serve as the size of games forward, things shouldn't be to bad. If you are looking at ~$200 to get into an army, that should hopefully make the game far more accessible. As for what they could do for the rules to make the games smaller, I guess remove the hoard rule for starters, probably the support attack rule as well, and either remove or nerf steadfast. That would reduce the need for large blocks. Additional troops would go back to providing only rank bonus and death stars would become far rarer.

**carlos13th**

Herzlos wrote:
silent25 wrote:
Surprised this hasn't been posted here yet, but via Scoodeta over at Warseer:

Spoiler:

With all the news surrounding Games Workshop over the last couple of weeks I think that it lines up fairly well. I was able to grab lunch with an old friend about a month ago who works for GW (not a local store croney). We talked everything GW and of course my drug of choice Warhammer Fantasy. He said that over the next coupel of months there would be drastic changes to the way GW does business...this was just in general. He didn't give me too many specifics, but now that the White Dwarf changes have hit the street openly and the news of a revamped website with FW product offerings and all it lines up. Once again he didnt come out and say that GW was going to be taking a hit with the earnings, but he stated that many of the changes had to do with new strategies to increase revenue and such. He has been traveling non-stop for new training and meetings, so it was easy to see something was coming down the pipe.

So on to my main point. I have always been a fantasy fanatic...game of choice hands down. He stated that there would be a new release which would change the way fantasy is currently played. Currently, the idea is to have huge blocks of infantry and high priced special characters and beasts which makes for higher costs to players and conceptually more revenue for GW. However this did not work fo rone reason or another. So it was obvious some changes were needed. The new approach will aim at bringing more people back into the game by making it smaller and more affordable. The new rule set would focus on making warhammer more of a small block and skirmish based game with fewer miniatures needed. The new box set would have less miniatures, but would basically set people up to get in the game and playing at a much reduced cost.

So he didnt give me the finer deatails that I would have liked, but he did say this would happen this summer for sure...not next year. He basically said that GW is being forced to make some changes due to some cash flow issues...which has become evident since we had lunch several weeks ago. It seems like he was pretty spot on so far with his vague statements...haha...take it as you will. But I have faith in this for many reasons. It seems with everything going on that it would line up well and make sense. GW needs a way to bring more people back intothe game while also doing soemthing to help bring fanatsy back up to strength.

Perhaps my terminology was distorted a bit in my OP. I do not believe my friend was indicating that this would be a "skirmish" game similar to Hordes or infinity. What he had stated was that it would head back in the direction of some older editions where smaller blocks were more viable. Seems people missed the smaller block protion and just focused on the skirmish portion of my OP. I am have no idea if he was saying this would be a new edition or a supplement. But my feeling was that this would be a replacement of the current ruleset. And it does line up with the smaller boxes (10 minis per). People could by a box or two and have a whole unit...instead of having to spend $200 on just one unit at 40 strong. This would allow GW to maintain the current price point while not scaring people away with the overall price of an army as they would now inherently be smaller.

There are some good things in this rumor that GW is apparently trying to address the entry level cost issue. How good this new rule set will be depend on how much the design team is willing to slaughter sacred cows. I believe that there are talent designers on the GW Design Team, but they are held back by existing philosophies that dominate design department. The whole "Pancake Edition" felt like the team could put out a good rule set, but there are those that want to hold them back or cling to outdated design ideas.

That sounds pretty promising. I can see me getting back into Warhammer Fantasy if the game size drops to the point where I can get a decent game with a battalion box or a a couple of unit boxes, and build up a large army over time. I'm sure it'd lure in a lot of ex-players, even if it's just to check out the new rules.

The talk of a smaller box-set sounds great too, if it still comes with a full set of rules for the cut down game.

Thing is you know the smaller box set is gonna cost more than the current one does.

**silent25**

carlos13th wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
Making the game smaller might make it slightly cheaper, but it won't do jack gak about sticker shock. You'll still have people walking into a store and seeing $85+ monsters and $60+ boxes of 5-10 infantry, then walking back out again saying "lol, nope." And most people won't sit and listen to you explain "No, really, it's not that bad! Trust me, I'm a salesman."

This is a very good point. Even people who are willing to pay 20 for 10-16 standard troops are going to shirk at the prices of some other stuff. I have seen people considering getting into it turn tail when looking at the price of the rulebook. I have a bunch of Dark Angels I am getting rid of not because I dislike them but because I refuse to invest the extra money in them to make them a playable force once you factor in the prices of other models, books etc.

I would rather paint up a bunch of Samurai Historical's for use in both Kings of War and Ronin. Especially when I consider that you can get a playable force for ronin from north star for about the same price as a single warhammer 40k box those models are in metal and are on the more expensive end of metal Samurai Models. Steel Fist do Samurai models that some people consider pricey that work out about £3 a model and they are some of the nicest well researched models I have ever set eyes upon.

Even already pot committed, sunk cost fallacy whatever you wan't to call it its still cheaper for me to call it a day with GW and go elsewhere for gaming.

Well PP seems to be doing fine with game and figs having similar cost to GW to figs. Whenever that is brought up, people always point, it has a smaller troop requirement. So it's cheaper to get into. How is that any different?

**MWHistorian**

if they can't lower the price of their figures, then they HAVE to lower the price of the Codex and rule book. Go back to smaller paper back ones, leave the fluff for supplements, but make codex's balanced and affordable.

**Joyboozer**

It doesn't matter what they come up with a solution as long as "that guy" is still there saying "great, that means we can raise prices".

**heartserenade**

I think PP prices are also based on GW prices, since it would be daft to ignore the market leader's prices. They know that people will buy miniatures despite those prices so they can put their own prices near GW's. If the market leader will suddenly drop their prices into half, I'd expect everyone else to follow suit if they want to stay as a competing product.

This is why fastfood restaurants usually have more or less the same prices on food items. If Mcdonald's suddenly drop all their prices by 1/4 of what they usually cost, people will flock to them so the other fastfood chains need to followsuit or else they'll lose customers. So IF GW will lower their prices by a significant margin, it won't come as a surprise if PP suddenly do a price drop as well.

**rich1231**

silent25 wrote:
frozenwastes wrote:
Rich at Wayland confirmed that in the last year, the sales of Wayland Games went up 15% and GW sales made up no part of that. Given Wayland's direct relationship with hobby distribution and their generalist approach to supplying the UK and Europe, it might be a fair corallary to the ICV2 numbers from the US reporting around the same level of growth.

Did Wayland say what did made up that 15%? The ICV2 articles only mention CCG's and boardgames driving growth. No mention of miniatures collectible or non-collectible being part of the growth over the last year. They even mention game stores abandoning all non-CCG gaming in favor of only carrying collectible card games. None of the articles or economic data I have seen is showing the miniature games market is growing. The growth from the other companies appears to be from income that use to go to GW and is now going elsewhere.

You could have asked directly

I should have been more specific... GW sales have definitely dropped back. Out total sales grew approx 15% last year in spite of that drop. We didn't really see a big growth in our CCG sales, as we have not really implemented our CCG strategy as yet. All of the growth has come from a wide breadth of increases in lots of ranges. No one entity has seized the vacuum being left. There are lots of issues in the supply chain of this industry at the moment, until those issues get resolved no one will be able to move to the next level to offer any challenge.

**H.B.M.C.**

Just outsource the rules to people who care about them. Please!!!

**Herzlos**

carlos13th wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
silent25 wrote:
Surprised this hasn't been posted here yet, but via Scoodeta over at Warseer:

Spoiler:

With all the news surrounding Games Workshop over the last couple of weeks I think that it lines up fairly well. I was able to grab lunch with an old friend about a month ago who works for GW (not a local store croney). We talked everything GW and of course my drug of choice Warhammer Fantasy. He said that over the next coupel of months there would be drastic changes to the way GW does business...this was just in general. He didn't give me too many specifics, but now that the White Dwarf changes have hit the street openly and the news of a revamped website with FW product offerings and all it lines up. Once again he didnt come out and say that GW was going to be taking a hit with the earnings, but he stated that many of the changes had to do with new strategies to increase revenue and such. He has been traveling non-stop for new training and meetings, so it was easy to see something was coming down the pipe.

So on to my main point. I have always been a fantasy fanatic...game of choice hands down. He stated that there would be a new release which would change the way fantasy is currently played. Currently, the idea is to have huge blocks of infantry and high priced special characters and beasts which makes for higher costs to players and conceptually more revenue for GW. However this did not work fo rone reason or another. So it was obvious some changes were needed. The new approach will aim at bringing more people back into the game by making it smaller and more affordable. The new rule set would focus on making warhammer more of a small block and skirmish based game with fewer miniatures needed. The new box set would have less miniatures, but would basically set people up to get in the game and playing at a much reduced cost.

So he didnt give me the finer deatails that I would have liked, but he did say this would happen this summer for sure...not next year. He basically said that GW is being forced to make some changes due to some cash flow issues...which has become evident since we had lunch several weeks ago. It seems like he was pretty spot on so far with his vague statements...haha...take it as you will. But I have faith in this for many reasons. It seems with everything going on that it would line up well and make sense. GW needs a way to bring more people back intothe game while also doing soemthing to help bring fanatsy back up to strength.

Perhaps my terminology was distorted a bit in my OP. I do not believe my friend was indicating that this would be a "skirmish" game similar to Hordes or infinity. What he had stated was that it would head back in the direction of some older editions where smaller blocks were more viable. Seems people missed the smaller block protion and just focused on the skirmish portion of my OP. I am have no idea if he was saying this would be a new edition or a supplement. But my feeling was that this would be a replacement of the current ruleset. And it does line up with the smaller boxes (10 minis per). People could by a box or two and have a whole unit...instead of having to spend $200 on just one unit at 40 strong. This would allow GW to maintain the current price point while not scaring people away with the overall price of an army as they would now inherently be smaller.

There are some good things in this rumor that GW is apparently trying to address the entry level cost issue. How good this new rule set will be depend on how much the design team is willing to slaughter sacred cows. I believe that there are talent designers on the GW Design Team, but they are held back by existing philosophies that dominate design department. The whole "Pancake Edition" felt like the team could put out a good rule set, but there are those that want to hold them back or cling to outdated design ideas.

That sounds pretty promising. I can see me getting back into Warhammer Fantasy if the game size drops to the point where I can get a decent game with a battalion box or a a couple of unit boxes, and build up a large army over time. I'm sure it'd lure in a lot of ex-players, even if it's just to check out the new rules.

The talk of a smaller box-set sounds great too, if it still comes with a full set of rules for the cut down game.

Thing is you know the smaller box set is gonna cost more than the current one does.

I really hope not, unless it comes with something like 3 or 4 factions instead of 2. If it's a cut-down starter with reasonable armies the size of the current starter I'll be happy paying the going rate + inflation (so, say, £70 [which is £63 from a discounter]), or If it's a lower figure count game for £50 or less, then I'll buy it straight off. If not I'll probably leave it.

For comparison, I nearly bought the Judge Dredd starter yesterday (£80 RRP), which has less figures (metal) and the full rule book, but passed until I could find out more about the game. GW need to beat that for me to buy in.

**Wayniac**

What I'm afraid of is that they'll change the rules to lower the figure count... And then do another price hike to compensate.

**carlos13th**

silent25 wrote:
carlos13th wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
Making the game smaller might make it slightly cheaper, but it won't do jack gak about sticker shock. You'll still have people walking into a store and seeing $85+ monsters and $60+ boxes of 5-10 infantry, then walking back out again saying "lol, nope." And most people won't sit and listen to you explain "No, really, it's not that bad! Trust me, I'm a salesman."

This is a very good point. Even people who are willing to pay 20 for 10-16 standard troops are going to shirk at the prices of some other stuff. I have seen people considering getting into it turn tail when looking at the price of the rulebook. I have a bunch of Dark Angels I am getting rid of not because I dislike them but because I refuse to invest the extra money in them to make them a playable force once you factor in the prices of other models, books etc.

I would rather paint up a bunch of Samurai Historical's for use in both Kings of War and Ronin. Especially when I consider that you can get a playable force for ronin from north star for about the same price as a single warhammer 40k box those models are in metal and are on the more expensive end of metal Samurai Models. Steel Fist do Samurai models that some people consider pricey that work out about £3 a model and they are some of the nicest well researched models I have ever set eyes upon.

Even already pot committed, sunk cost fallacy whatever you wan't to call it its still cheaper for me to call it a day with GW and go elsewhere for gaming.

Well PP seems to be doing fine with game and figs having similar cost to GW to figs. Whenever that is brought up, people always point, it has a smaller troop requirement. So it's cheaper to get into. How is that any different?

I don't play PP games or buy their models so I cant say.

I imagine its because people can play with less of a price investment and can expand their force with a lower over all cost than with GW. You would have to ask someone who plays PP for a real insight into that though.

**Herzlos**

I get the impression (from reading on here, not playing) that you can change your main caster/jack and that totally changes the playing style of your force. So you can vary your force significantly with minimal spend.

If you want a different play style with WHF/40K you need to either start a new army or buy a stack of new units.

**PsychoticStorm**

Its quite easy actually, the overall price of the wargame is cheaper, even if the individual prices may seem similar, when you play a wargame the price per model is not really relevant, what is relevant is the price of the whole package.

if as an extreme example I had a wargame company that made models that was 1 euro per model it seems cheap, but if I bundled them in boxes of 50 its still 50 euro the box, now if my wargame rules forced you to field around 300 models the wargame cost would be 300 euro, now if another company made models of 5 euro each and sold them in bundles of 3 its 15 euro per box and if you really wanted lets say 15 of them, its a 75 euro investment, as a whole the wargame is cheaper despite individual models having 5 times the price.

**Wayniac**

carlos13th wrote:
silent25 wrote:
carlos13th wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
Making the game smaller might make it slightly cheaper, but it won't do jack gak about sticker shock. You'll still have people walking into a store and seeing $85+ monsters and $60+ boxes of 5-10 infantry, then walking back out again saying "lol, nope." And most people won't sit and listen to you explain "No, really, it's not that bad! Trust me, I'm a salesman."

This is a very good point. Even people who are willing to pay 20 for 10-16 standard troops are going to shirk at the prices of some other stuff. I have seen people considering getting into it turn tail when looking at the price of the rulebook. I have a bunch of Dark Angels I am getting rid of not because I dislike them but because I refuse to invest the extra money in them to make them a playable force once you factor in the prices of other models, books etc.

I would rather paint up a bunch of Samurai Historical's for use in both Kings of War and Ronin. Especially when I consider that you can get a playable force for ronin from north star for about the same price as a single warhammer 40k box those models are in metal and are on the more expensive end of metal Samurai Models. Steel Fist do Samurai models that some people consider pricey that work out about £3 a model and they are some of the nicest well researched models I have ever set eyes upon.

Even already pot committed, sunk cost fallacy whatever you wan't to call it its still cheaper for me to call it a day with GW and go elsewhere for gaming.

Well PP seems to be doing fine with game and figs having similar cost to GW to figs. Whenever that is brought up, people always point, it has a smaller troop requirement. So it's cheaper to get into. How is that any different?

I don't play PP games or buy their models so I cant say.

I imagine its because people can play with less of a price investment and can expand their force with a lower over all cost than with GW. You would have to ask someone who plays PP for a real insight into that though.

I've been looking into PP as a "social" game to play, and from what I can tell, the same amount that gets you a low-point starting force from GW gets you a decent "normal" sized force for WM/H and can likely get you additional units that you can switch out, so you aren't limited to playing the same force every battle because that's all you have. That's the appeal - I can either spend upwards of $500 for a rigid Warhammer army, or spend $500 and get enough variety in my WM/H force that I can play multiple ways and have fewer models to transport/paint.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
I get the impression (from reading on here, not playing) that you can change your main caster/jack and that totally changes the playing style of your force. So you can vary your force significantly with minimal spend.

If you want a different play style with WHF/40K you need to either start a new army or buy a stack of new units.

Also this as well. With WM/H if I want to do something new, I buy a new commander ($10 or so depending on the figure) and it gives me a new way to play, and I can bolster my force as necessary depending on the units I need, so it's more like old Warhammer where you could easily budget some money to get a new figure as outside of the big guys they are about $49.99, so it's a matter of having a small budget and saying "Hey you know, this Warjack looks cool, I'm going to buy him and see what I can do" on a whim versus "Let's see I need to buy three boxes of these guys, and I'll need 5 of these flying guys, and that tank looks sweet, and oh I'll need another squad of thse..." and you're at a couple of hundred dollars.

**carlos13th**

Yeah price per model matters to people who are only in it for painting and modelling more so than war gamers I imagine.

That said there is probably a certain point where someone will go "That price for a single model? feth off" even if its the only one you need to play the game.

You are right though if you are in it for gaming the over all cost matters more than the price per model.

That said I am eyeing up the Metal Gear Rex model kit (for the very distant future) which I have no intention of ever playing with and thats about £50 for a single model.

**Palindrome**

puma713 wrote:

But I for one, having played since 2nd Edition and having owned nearly every army, loved the direction that GW was moving in. It seemed that, with every edition, they were getting more streamlined - making the game easier to understand, easier to play and thus, easier to teach. It seemed like they were doing their best to make the game less complex. Granted, no rules system this elaborate would be perfect, but every edition seemed to be boiled down once again and reduced once more to its finer points. Then 6th came out. It almost seemed like 2nd Edition again.

I have also played since 2nd ed and I dislike the direction that GW took with 3rd onwards. Simplifying the rules is fine but only if the game is kept interesting and scope for varied tactics is retained within the core rules and without the need for vast quantities of special rules. The ideal wargame would have simple (but not nessicarily 'streamlined') rules and allow for tactical depth and flexability on the table, GW falls short on both counts.

I'm also not convinced that 2nd ed was more complex than more modern editions. The 2nd ed rulebook has 96 pages while the hard back 6th ed book has 131 (up to the fluff section) and the soft back 5th ed rulebook has 95. The mechanics of modern 40k is extremely simple, in my mind too simple, so why on earth do they need so many pages of rules?

Now that GW have made standard 40k games into what used to be the preserve of Apocalypse games I thiknk that they have boxed themselves in. The ideal solution would be to split the 40k rules in two. Keep one set as they are now (but obviously massively cleaned up) to allow for the large games that GW and some players want and develope a new skirmish system, ideally from scratch, to cater for players who want smaller but much more indepth games.

**carlos13th**

How do you feel about Kings of War Palindrome? Lots of people cite that as a very simplified rule set that doesn't sacrifice tactical depth for simplicity. Would you agree?

**Palindrome**

I've not played it so I can't comment.

Something like Bolt Action or Hail Caesar would be good examples of what I mean. In fact one of the best examples is Epic Armageddon which GW so helpfully killed off.

I think the main problem with 6th ed is that while it tried to regain some of the more interesting 2nd ed rules, although pale shadows of their former selves, it also embraced the looseness of 2nd ed which was designed as a completely different type of game and it just dones't work, its simply not 'competative'.

WHFB has devolved into dice rolls for everything and list writing is more important that tactical acumen, in fairness this is also a serious flaw in 40k as well. I used to love fantasy, it has always had its problems but it was a game that genuinely rewarded player skill, particulary in the movement phase. Nowadays its all about static infantry blocks, massive monsters and overpowered magic which is something that I personally have little to no interest in.

I think a serious reboot of both core games is a nessecity if GW is to have a hope of long term survival.

**winterdyne**

Share price is now 520p. Ouch.

**VyRa**

winterdyne wrote:
Share price is now 520p. Ouch.

Yep, that's a new low.

**Kilkrazy**

The all time low is much lower than that, actually, however share price is not always an accurate reflection of the value of the company as a going concern. Profits and cash flow are more important.

If someone decided to buy a lot of shares to take over the company, the price would go up.

**Azreal13**

There's a way to go before they hit a 5 year low (disregarding the odd spike) but I'm surprised we haven't seen some more bullish investors picking up some stock and causing the price to rally at least a bit by now.

**Barfolomew**

I've played Warmachine and 40K quite a bit. Let's assume the cost between the games is the same because people have debated that enough. Here is the primary reasons I would recommend Warmachine over 40K:

- Takes less models and thus less models to paint and keep up with in the game.
- Switching the warcaster model can cause the army to play very differently. Basically, you can have multiple styles of army with a couple different warcasters. In 40K, you need to usually swap out large sections of the army to get it to play differently.
- The rules are well written. See the "you make the call" forums for Warmachine and 40K and the difference is mind blowing.
- PP interacts with the customers. They actually host forums and are fairly active on them.

**Daedleh**

Palindrome wrote:
I've not played it so I can't comment.

Something like Bolt Action or Hail Caesar would be good examples of what I mean. In fact one of the best examples is Epic Armageddon which GW so helpfully killed off.

I think the main problem with 6th ed is that while it tried to regain some of the more interesting 2nd ed rules, although pale shadows of their former selves, it also embraced the looseness of 2nd ed which was designed as a completely different type of game and it just dones't work, its simply not 'competative'.

WHFB has devolved into dice rolls for everything and list writing is more important that tactical acumen, in fairness this is also a serious flaw in 40k as well. I used to love fantasy, it has always had its problems but it was a game that genuinely rewarded player skill, particulary in the movement phase. Nowadays its all about static infantry blocks, massive monsters and overpowered magic which is something that I personally have little to no interest in.

I think a serious reboot of both core games is a nessecity if GW is to have a hope of long term survival.

I think you'll really, really like Kings of War. The rules are here and you can use your existing WHFB armies to play. I'm on the same page as you in that Bolt Action and Epic Armageddon (not played Hail Caesar) really appeal to me on their simplicity of rules but depth of play. Kings of War is the same. Very simple rules (deceptively so) but very tactical and rewarding. Warmachine by comparison has complex rules (well written, complex rules) and a huge depth of play.

**Wayniac**

Daedleh wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
I've not played it so I can't comment.

Something like Bolt Action or Hail Caesar would be good examples of what I mean. In fact one of the best examples is Epic Armageddon which GW so helpfully killed off.

I think the main problem with 6th ed is that while it tried to regain some of the more interesting 2nd ed rules, although pale shadows of their former selves, it also embraced the looseness of 2nd ed which was designed as a completely different type of game and it just dones't work, its simply not 'competative'.

WHFB has devolved into dice rolls for everything and list writing is more important that tactical acumen, in fairness this is also a serious flaw in 40k as well. I used to love fantasy, it has always had its problems but it was a game that genuinely rewarded player skill, particulary in the movement phase. Nowadays its all about static infantry blocks, massive monsters and overpowered magic which is something that I personally have little to no interest in.

I think a serious reboot of both core games is a nessecity if GW is to have a hope of long term survival.

I think you'll really, really like Kings of War. The rules are here and you can use your existing WHFB armies to play. I'm on the same page as you in that Bolt Action and Epic Armageddon (not played Hail Caesar) really appeal to me on their simplicity of rules but depth of play. Kings of War is the same. Very simple rules (deceptively so) but very tactical and rewarding. Warmachine by comparison has complex rules (well written, complex rules) and a huge depth of play.

I just wanted to add this is the reason why I'm planning to start Kings of War and hopefully convince some WHFB players to change sides; I love the fact that the game is based around tactics and the superior general can win instead of whomever has the biggest/baddest/most expensive units. Warpath (their 40k version) didn't feel quite right for some reason and isn't as polished, but KoW looks great as I've always liked Fantasy more than 40K.

I do want to get into Warmachine as well but the price is a little steep at the moment for a game that not many people play, although I know one person at my FLGS is trying to drum up interest.

**carlos13th**

I think with warpath they tried to apply kings of war to Sci Fi without really highlighting the differences between the two settings enough.

I am currently working on a Samurai Army for Kings of War using models from a Variety of manufacturers. I will also be using the same models for ronin.

**Silver_skates**

I may be one of the few people but I'd be irritated by a move away from large units in Warhammer. I like the feel of bigger battles with lots of men on the battlefied marching into combat. I suppose I could start playing 10,000 point games but if the rules changes what am I going to do with:

40 Dwarf Hammerers
40 Dwarf warriors with two handed weapons
40 Dwarf warriors with shield and hand weapon
40 Empire Halberdiers

Also, when people compare warmahordes with Warhammer although the cost of playing a game is lower, collecting is not. No PP fan complains about paying £50-ish on ten banes but will say that GW are priced too highly when a unit of 10 Dark Elf witches cost £30. I think the scale of the game means that you shouldn't compare.